Skip to main content

tv   [untitled]    November 12, 2013 9:30pm-10:01pm PST

9:30 pm
>> todd, general manager and cfo. the numbers reflect about $3 million lower cost of damage estimates we are finalizing those and meeting with the california office of emergency services tomorrow in sonora as well as going through our updated figures then. the funding updates, we are as discussed priestley -- previously with the commission using an appropriation and we will file for every potential dollar whether it be insurance or federal funding. the funding now is the assistance grant funding and in addition to the governor's declaration for california disaster act funding
9:31 pm
as well. the application tomorrow is for the state money. and then we will also be file an insurance claim over the next few weeks. so with that, happy to answer any questions and, we are working on the presidential declaration appeal as well with the governor's office as well as the state. >> that was answering my question. thank you. >> next item i would like to reverse the order, the quarterly budget status report. >> this will be a very quick item. this is our quarterly report to show how we are doing with our operation with our
9:32 pm
nearly one $1 billion budget and we like to show where we are saving in cost to help to keep rates as low as we can. this report does that. there are a couple of brief slides in your packet. the news to report is that retail water and revenue are better than budget from sales, however due to some timing difference because of our wholesale customers prepaid us a large sum of money last fiscal year, you will see that is reflected here at the timing difference. the reserves are all very healthy and thank you to everybody and their hard work on that. you will see the water department has nearly $278 million in projected reserves and water department and heche and $46 million. the
9:33 pm
scorecard the fund balance adopted by the commission showed that we are meeting or competing all of the reserved ratio as well as the debt coverage and we are in very good financial condition. any questions? >> vice-president caen? >> i have a question about the coverage ratios. with the three enterprises, right now you are showing 1.25. is there one of the enter -- enterprises. >> at that time we'll look at what specifically that coverage ratio needs to be. if we had to sell the bonds today, it would
9:34 pm
be 1.25. that's what the market is demanding. >> okay. i thought that was an on going figure. but you say not. my other question is under waste water, the sewage service charge? footnote a, i don't really understand it. >> so the sewer service charge is projected to be a little bit over or better than budget because we are collecting and treating more flows than what we had originally assumed in the budget. this is part of the fact that we are now doing 2-year projections for the budget and last year we treated more sewage and that heighten treatment levels are into current year. that leads to a slight positive surprise in
9:35 pm
sewer revenues. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> next item is our draft rate pay era insurance scorecard. >> next i will present you nancy -- she's done the quarterly audit report and performance review. she and i have been working with city controller's team and nancy will introduce them in developing as you have required us to do under the rate pay era assurance scorecard. nancy will
9:36 pm
give you an update. this scorecard will be a public lens and will be communicated not only on our website but -- on our mailers. as we are gearing up for our new rate study, we want to attend nearly 700 neighborhood groups and association. it's a potential for a lot of visibility and we want to reflect well on the commission and all the work it has done. nancy? >> good afternoon, i'm joined today by my colleagues, and project manager. as required by the commission adopted assurance policy i'm pleased to introduce to you today.
9:37 pm
the development of the scorecard is required by the assurance rate payers. it's the best management practices and cost-efficient -- our department collaborated with the controllers office to develop the rate pay era insurance scorecard and benchmark report and parks and recreation for park maintenance. the rate pay r scorecard for over 114 from the strategic plan. covering four areas in the area of management,
9:38 pm
personnel management and asset management and sustainability inclusive of 5 goals. 1 sf puc values and 114 sustainability metrics. the strategic for the framework includes 114 benchmark measures each addressing one of each facet important to the sf puc. each facet is linked to the goal and the measures are updated twice yearly separately and reported to the mayor's office. at this juncture i would like to introduce jennifer to introduce the scorecard today and highlight key elements. thank you. >> thank you. as nancy mentioned the development of
9:39 pm
the scorecard was a collaborative everyday with the massive puc and controllers office in reaching a broad audience a visual approach. to walk you through what you are looking at, there are nine measures illustrated here in three categories which represent the four components of the rate payers assurance policy. the top row is management infrastructure safety and product quality. the middle row is comprised of two policy categories, mission management and sustainability. what this aims to measure, cost-effective and sustainable service through affordability, cost and environmental stewardship. the final category in the bottom row is personnel management, this aims to measure service excellence and to a community involvement and
9:40 pm
positive working environment. as you can see the measures are graded on a standard academic grading scale centered around the b, a measure of industry standard for a benchmark receives a b and to receive an a and others would fall below a c. the average is an a minus which shows here for 2012 and 2013. the measures for selected through a collaborative effort through sf puc staff while keeping in mind that broad public audience. measures of selected based on fit with the rate payer policy and framework with the national utility standard in measured performance. other factors include the availability of
9:41 pm
data in a timely manner and reoccurring basis and the measures in the strategic ability plan. finally a major factor in the selection were benchmarked against an industry standard or relevant policy. lastly on page two, there is summary information provided. the top provides the main purpose, the next is a detailed academic grading scale and a category measure and enter prize. i will hand it back over the nancy who will close with a next step. >> to receive feedback on the scorecard from the extended public audience and ensure completely. we'll introduce the
9:42 pm
scorecard for input at the october meeting. the remarks and suggestions are going to be shared here today at our citizens advisory committee. these are a few of the questions that had come up. they are inclusive of how we are ensuring this grade. inclusive of measurement as well as those at the dbi departments and water effects and currently only measure electricity are provided to the bayview hunters poise and shipyard and treasure island. some think that the information presented in the form of graphic was confusing and others like them and confusing
9:43 pm
benchmark including an authorized budget for reference and we'll come back for future update. on september 25th there was a lot of focus on health and safety and seeing the score was not desirable and there was a lot of interest in what we can do to bring that up. other considerations were potentially asking to weight scores and the service goal. other public response including how does the puc manage puc rates and also thinking about now that we are potentially benchmarking performance and publishing that for just rates to the higher score at the puc. one of the questions included is innovative. it's the first time and sf puc the first one.
9:44 pm
lastly how does the scorecard impact the sf puc ratings. we also had internal stakeholder feedback and measurements to ensure that perhaps is it a measure of missions for service and it's considered measuring, sit breaking or not working and our ability to plan. another one is inclusive of sections to different views, one regulatory and one critical. our next step, i would like to welcome the feedback from the commission and incorporate any recommendation in such considerations would include are we looking at the right measures. are we properly weighting them against each other and time, is it better to have it around december or
9:45 pm
around the prebudget hearings. what you are seeing today is a live document. so it's definitely subject to change. our communications team would like to also lay over a puc graphics makeover once the score hard has been final and the controllers office would like to public this in the spring of next year for 2013. with that i would like to thank you and welcome your feedback. >> commissioner torres? >> the last point in terms of the input from us, how is that going to be implemented? your last slide. >> under next steps? >> yes. there you go. controllers office to public scorecard for data as of calendar year 2013. that's not going to happen in 2013? is
9:46 pm
it? >> likely not. it's something that can definitely be postponed. i would prefer to hear all feedback and comments from all parties and we can finalize before we jump to that. >> what's the process for doing thachl that. what is our process? >> i'm open for discussion. i'm available to meet with anyone at the same time. >> you are the correct foreign talk -- person to talk to? >> yes i am. whether it's through meetings and consolidated list of questions. i will be more than happy to provide answers to. thank you. >> commissioner vietor? >> i have questions on something that wasn't reported on and maybe we weren't focused on as much, but thing like the programs. as we start to move
9:47 pm
into sfip and possibility to later on the communities benefits for these programs that we do some measurement around the community measurement programs and even the public programs, the solo programs that these programs are really for public purpose that don't seem to quite be captured here? >> thank you. >> commissioner, moran? >> thank you. first, let me say that you have taken on an enormously difficult job. we are a large and complex organization and the idea of putting out a rational scorecard on one sheet of paper is daunting. and, as far as
9:48 pm
looking at this particular document that is important is the intended audience. as i heard you present it, it's something that we would use in public forums and it was referred to us as a lens through which people can see us in the quality of work we are doing. the first question i have is in the outreach that you did and in the review that you had, there is a couple of outcomes and one is what are you measuring. as far as what you are measuring is there a concurrence that those were the right nine things to be looking at? >> we have shared the scorecard in a preliminary draft form internally with our agm and management and also with the citizens advisory committee and fairness board. we have received some feedback and that is likely to change pending new
9:49 pm
information. >> in terms of the public, i assume that the primary audience for this is not the agm. that the audience is the people who are at the board and cac and others. so how much concurrence is there from our public review that these are the right nine things to be looking at? >> thank you for noting the daunting opportunity we have. it really is the fact that we collect the 114 measures which they include the community measures in our stability plan and most people don't make time to read all the 114. we try to figure out which ones are representative and i don't know if these are the right ones but i'm thinking that just like we've done with the citywide parks, the scorecard and citywide streets scorecard, i think at some point we have to just try it and get a larger
9:50 pm
scale input. that being said, the community benefits idea, we put a local hire one on there as an example on 9 and there are so many great things that puc does and though greats 114 things we do well, people don't necessarily have time to read that. whatever the 9 end up being, if we put it on one page people would have the opportunity to look at. whatever those measures are, we really do want to hear from you that they are the right ones and there are things that show an organization that you can be proud of and are conveying the hard work of the men and women of the puc and doing it responsibly. >> i guess i would encourage it as you review that to take significance guidance from the public audience. i want to make
9:51 pm
sure that how we are portrayed is accurate but if it's useful for the intended purpose it should be what the public cares about. as far as how we measure them, there is a couple, i think you have answered my right -- question. the power we are talking about is the treasure islands and hunters point. that is not something that the city enjoys or has relevance for. in item 3, you talk about the combined power of sewer and water of being less than 2 1/2 percent of average income. we have used the two 1/2 for water and sewer objective and this through power in there. >> i wanted to correct that,
9:52 pm
i'm glad you mentioned it. i will take the brunt for that. the correction measurement is two 1/2 percent excluding power. >> you should know that i hate that measure. the reason i do, and we've been using this for years and it makes absolute sense in the bond rating business. it's a measure of stress on a community's economy. from that standpoint it makes all the sense of the world. where it doesn't make sense is to an awful lot of people. the average income that we are basing on is over $70,000. there is a lot of folks that don't make $70,000. for them, this amount for the people who earn lens -- less
9:53 pm
than that, this amount of money is going to get worse. i would ask you to think about other ways to amplify that issue. what i'm attempted towards is the idea that how many people or what personal of people -- personal percentage of people in san francisco spend two 1/2 percent of their income buchlt some other way of measuring what the real stress is on folks because i think we are going to be dealing with aw that more and more. comment on the excellence one. good news is we don't of any permit violations. i would say that's not a measure of excellence. that's a measure of doing your job. the whole motion of the permit process is that you do not violate those. that's the fundamental
9:54 pm
requirement. so doing that is an important thing to know and to highlight, but it's not a measure of excellence. so i would encourage you to keep looking on that >> on that point, if i may, mr. president, so what is the appropriate? >> it's a horribly difficult thing to measure, very frankly. i don't know how you do that. it's a tough one. but when you say that excellence is measured by the floor, there is just something wrong with that. i don't have an answer to that. that's why instead of suggesting i ask that they take a hard look at how they might define. >> wouldn't other agencies auto that criteria as a measure? >> like the street, they have a street index in terms of how
9:55 pm
bumpy it is and for the park's clen lens anliness -- cleanliness and the values. with that being said, this is something that folks would resonate knowing that we didn't have violations. >> perhaps excellence is too high of a standard. >> it's our goal. >> we have set that objective. >> how do you measure that objective? >> that's really tough. i don't think this is how you do it. i think it's an important thing to tell people. it's important to not have violations. if we had violations, it's not that we are not excellent anymore. >> maybe we shouldn't use the word excellence but let the
9:56 pm
readers decide it. >> it's not measuring what we are saying we are measuring. so that's a problem. you can change what you are measuring or change how you measure it. >> move on to item 6 dhz customer service mentioned which is measured by whether you answer the phone in 20 seconds. without being facetious whether you can use an answering machine. i can't say it's quality. sometimes if we have customer satisfaction surveys. a lot of places you call in and you say will you hang on and you hit a survey. if there was some other way of measuring the quality, not that we got there quickly but what the quality of the response was, i think it would be more useful.
9:57 pm
>> as to the thing that started all of this which was the rate payer insurance policy. this doesn't help me assess whether we are meeting that policy or not. todd and i had some discussion about that and as part of the budget process what we are working on is a more detailed response to the policy. my interest was that this commission has spent a lot of time defining what it wanted to do, what the criteria were and the staff would work on that broad criteria and we wouldn't to have get involved in that. i want to make sure those expressions of policy don't go on a dusty shelf someplace but that we revisit and show an example of how we are doing. for example, there are i counted 9 policies that
9:58 pm
we had laid out as part of that. some of them had two parts to that so you can make them larger. things like we should be sensitive to the notion of mission creek. we should be looking at whether we expanded our mission on this or not or whether the mission shrunk. that's an important element. they are working on a much more detailed check sheet for not only that policy but will is the community benefit policy and others that we can get through budget process. i think that will help us much from the commission standpoint understand whether our policies are being add hered to and to what degree and there is also the need to have possible in that process a discussion. some of those issues are not yes or
9:59 pm
no kind of answers. a lot of them aren't. so we'll need to have some discussion on that. whether that discussion is best done within a budget hearing context anywhere we go through item by item and have discussion about that or whether that's more easily dealt with as a report that comes back. the nine elements of the rate payers assurance policy and do that for each of the policies we have and that's already being worked on by staff and that will at least give me a more detailed presentation of how we are doing that will be useful for my decision making. that's the end of my comments, thank you. >> we have grap pled with these exact same issues. i appreciate your comment. as far as the
10:00 pm
2013 timing, we wonder if it should be on the calendar before you during your budget deliberations and before the new proposed rate package as before you early next spring and in february. so that was part of our timing going back to commissioner torres question as well. >> thank you. so the next item is we sip quarterly update. i would like to have emilio come up. he has some news to share with everyone. >> good afternoon


info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on